Someone says 'The present king of France is bald,' but France has no king. Which best describes the status of this statement?
AIt is straightforwardly false, because the presupposed king does not exist
BIt fails to have a truth value — it commits presupposition failure and cannot be evaluated as true or false
CIt is meaningless because it uses an empty definite description
DIt is true, because a non-existent king cannot be bald
The sentence presupposes that France has a king. When that presupposition fails, the sentence doesn't simply come out false — it fails to make a determinate truth-apt claim at all. This is presupposition failure: the utterance misfires rather than merely being wrong. Option A represents Russell's original view (the sentence is false); option B reflects Strawson's insight that the sentence fails to get off the ground as a truth-apt assertion when the presupposition is absent.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Someone asks: 'Have you stopped cheating on tests?' You have never cheated. Which response correctly targets the presupposition rather than the assertion?
A'No, I haven't stopped' — denying the assertion while accepting the presupposition
B'Yes, I have stopped' — accepting both the presupposition and the assertion
C'I never cheated on tests in the first place' — denying the presupposition itself
D'That's an unfair question' — refusing to engage with the structure
The question presupposes that you have cheated in the past (that's what 'stopped' requires). Answering 'no' accepts the presupposition and merely denies the assertion — it implies you're still cheating. The only correct response is to deny the presupposition: 'I never cheated.' This is a presupposition denial — it pulls the prop from under the entire question rather than engaging with the assertion on the question's own terms.
Question 3 True / False
Negating a sentence eliminates its presuppositions — 'The king of France is not bald' carries no presupposition about France having a king.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Presuppositions survive negation — this is the definitive diagnostic test distinguishing presupposed from asserted content. Both 'The king of France is bald' and 'The king of France is not bald' presuppose that France has a king. Assertions flip under negation (committing to the positive vs. denying it); presuppositions remain stable through negation, embedding, and questioning. This survival-under-negation test is what separates presupposition from implicature.
Question 4 True / False
Factive verbs like 'know,' 'realize,' and 'discover' trigger presuppositions because they assume the truth of their complement clauses.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
'Sam knows that it is raining' presupposes that it is raining — the verb 'knows' builds in the truth of its complement. Even 'Sam doesn't know that it is raining' presupposes rain: negating the factive verb doesn't cancel the embedded clause's presupposition. Factive verbs are among the most important presupposition triggers, alongside definite descriptions, change-of-state verbs ('stopped,' 'started'), and iteratives ('again,' 'still').
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the practical difference between asserting something and presupposing it? Use an example to show why the distinction matters for communication.
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: An assertion is what the speaker explicitly commits to as true — the main claim, which can be accepted or denied directly. A presupposition is background content the speaker takes for granted without asserting it. Example: 'My sister just graduated' — assertion: a graduation just occurred; presupposition: the speaker has a sister. Denying the assertion ('No, she didn't') accepts the sister exists. Denying the presupposition requires a different move: 'Wait — you have a sister?'
The distinction matters because false presuppositions can smuggle unverified content past a listener focused on the main assertion. Political and legal language routinely exploits this: 'When did you stop embezzling funds?' forces the respondent to either accept the presupposition of past embezzlement or explicitly challenge it — and explicitly challenging a presupposition is a more disruptive conversational move than simply denying an assertion. Tracking presuppositional structure reveals how much implicit content shapes communication.